Director Bernard Rose describes this film as "extreme".... but unfortunately that simply translates into "violent" and "blood-soaked." And it doesn't come anywhere close to the "extreme" and shocking nature of "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein," made thirty years ago.
Perhaps some viewers will be impressed by the unconventional telling this classic novel, updating it to present day Los Angeles, and dispensing with the morbid origins of the character. Rose believes he has produced a more "faithful" version of the book.
However, in so doing, he has has dispensed with the many trademark scares and thrills and moments of drama that have transfixed audiences for decades. And taking a strange break from the clinical aspect of the film, he has oddly chosen to include the classic line, "he's alive!" -- spoken by Dr. Frankenstein not in a hushed, excited whisper, which might have worked, but in some sort of insane fit of uncontrollable hysteria, as if he was possessed. For a moment I thought I was watching an SCTV sketch featuring Joe Flaherty.
Attempting to tell the story through the monster's perspective might have been effective... however it means that we never get to know too much about Dr. Frankenstein and his motivations.
Thus, we are left the monster -- or more accurately, a deteriorating simple-minded homeless man. The scenes of him throwing the little girl into the water and meeting the blind man have nowhere near the resonance, regrettably, as their counterparts in "Frankenstein" (1931) and "Son of Frankenstein." In those films the monster was clearly a victim, and we felt for him.
But in Rose's version, we simply do not feel for him. We may be frightened by this bloody, lurking creature.... we may be curious as to what he will do next and where he will end up... but in my case, at least, I simply had no strong feelings about him. If anything I was repelled. I did not pity him.
And that pretty much sums up why this version of "Frankenstein," in my opinion, fails.
Perhaps some viewers will be impressed by the unconventional telling this classic novel, updating it to present day Los Angeles, and dispensing with the morbid origins of the character. Rose believes he has produced a more "faithful" version of the book.
However, in so doing, he has has dispensed with the many trademark scares and thrills and moments of drama that have transfixed audiences for decades. And taking a strange break from the clinical aspect of the film, he has oddly chosen to include the classic line, "he's alive!" -- spoken by Dr. Frankenstein not in a hushed, excited whisper, which might have worked, but in some sort of insane fit of uncontrollable hysteria, as if he was possessed. For a moment I thought I was watching an SCTV sketch featuring Joe Flaherty.
Attempting to tell the story through the monster's perspective might have been effective... however it means that we never get to know too much about Dr. Frankenstein and his motivations.
Thus, we are left the monster -- or more accurately, a deteriorating simple-minded homeless man. The scenes of him throwing the little girl into the water and meeting the blind man have nowhere near the resonance, regrettably, as their counterparts in "Frankenstein" (1931) and "Son of Frankenstein." In those films the monster was clearly a victim, and we felt for him.
But in Rose's version, we simply do not feel for him. We may be frightened by this bloody, lurking creature.... we may be curious as to what he will do next and where he will end up... but in my case, at least, I simply had no strong feelings about him. If anything I was repelled. I did not pity him.
And that pretty much sums up why this version of "Frankenstein," in my opinion, fails.